Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 8 docs - [View All]
Section 117 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Article 329(b) in The Constitution Of India 1949
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Citedby 16 docs - [View All]
Bajrang Lal vs Kanhaiya Lal And Ors. on 14 December, 2006
M. Y. Ghorpade vs Shivaji Rao M. Poal & Ors on 4 September, 2002
Kolleth Mohammed Master vs The Munsiff, Tirur And Anr. on 31 May, 1984
Rasoja Haridas vs K.V.Balachandran on 22 July, 2011
Paonam Achou Singh vs Laishram Nandakumar Singh And ... on 31 October, 2007

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Supreme Court of India
Aeltemesh Rein vs Chandulal Chandrakar & Others on 10 March, 1981
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1199, 1981 SCR (3) 142
Author: Y Chandrachud
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)
           PETITIONER:
AELTEMESH REIN

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1981

BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:
 1981 AIR 1199		  1981 SCR  (3) 142
 1981 SCC  (2) 689	  1981 SCALE  (3)487
 CITATOR INFO :
 RF	    1983 SC 558	 (26)


ACT:
     Representation of	the People Act, 1951-Sections 86 and
117  whether   ultravires   of	 Article   329(b)   of	 the
Constitution.



HEADNOTE:
     The appellant  was a  candidate for Election to the Lok
Sabha in  the General  Elections. Respondent  1 was declared
the  successful	 candidate.  The  appellant  filed  Election
Petition under	Section 81  of	the  Representation  of	 the
People Act,  1951. The	appellant expressly  stated  in	 his
Election Petition  that security  amount of  Rs. 2,000/- was
being deposited	 along with  the  petition  as	required  by
section 117  of the  Act but,  in fact,	 no such deposit was
made.  The  High  Court	 dismissed  the	 petition  for	non-
compliance with	 the provisions of section 117. On Appeal to
this Court, the appellant argued that sections 86 and 117 of
the Representation  of the  People Act, 1951 are ultra vires
Article 329(b)	of the Constitution and, therefore, the High
Court was  in error  in dismissing the election petition for
non-compliance of section 117.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
^
     HELD: (1)	The  Constitution  by  Article	329(b),	 has
conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a
law providing  for  the	 authority  to	which  the  election
petition may  be presented  and the  manner of providing it.
The provision  of law  which  prescribes  that	an  election
petition shall	be accompanied	by the	payment of  security
amount pertains	 to the	 area covered  by the  manner of the
making of  the election	 petition and  is, therefore, within
the authority of the Parliament. [143 G-H]
     (2) The  question as to what is the consequence of non-
compliance with	 section 117  of the Act has been settled by
the decision  of this  Court in	 Charan	 Lal  Sahu  v.	Nand
Kishore Bhatt and Others [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294. [144 A]
     (3) The High Court was right in dismissing the election
petition summarily in view of section 86(1) of the Act. [144
C]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 931 of 1980.

From the Judgment and order dated 25.3.1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 3/80.

Aeltemesh Rein Appellant in person.

143

G.N. Rao and C.L. Sahu for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. The appellant, Aeltemesh Rein, was a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha from the Durg Parliamentary Constituency in the General Elections held in January 1980. Respondent I having been declared as a successful candidate in the aforesaid election, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('The Act'). The appellant stated expressly in his election petition that the security amount of Rs. 2,000/- was being deposited along with the petition as required by s. 117 of the Act but, in fact, no such deposit was made. The High Court dismissed the petition for non- compliance with the provisions of s. 117 and hence this appeal.

It is urged by the appellant who appeared in person before us that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition for the reason that the provisions of s.117 were not complied with. We see no substance in this contention. Article 329(b) of the Constitution provides, in so far as material, that no election to either House of Parliament shall be called in question except by an election petition "presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature". It is in pursuance of this provision that the Parliament provided by s. 117 of the Act that at the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court, in accordance with the rules of the High Court, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as security for the costs of the respondent. We are unable to accept the petitioner's argument that the words "in such manner" which occur in Article 329(b) are limited in their operation to procedural and not substantive requirements. The Constitution, by the aforesaid clause, has conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which the election petition may be presented and the manner of providing it. The provision of law which prescribes that an election petition shall be accompanied by the payment of security amount pertains to the area covered by the manner of the making of the election petition and is, therefore, within the authority of the Parliament.

144

The only question which survives is as to what is the consequence of non-compliance with s. 117 of the Act. That question has been settled by the decision of this court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Ors.(1) wherein it was held that the High Court has no option but to reject an election petition which is not accompanied by the payment of security amount as provided in s. 117 of the Act. Section 86(1) of the Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 or 117. In that view of the matter, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily.

The appellant contended that he could not pay the deposit because he was bugled on way to the Court. This plea is as irrelevant as it seems untrue.

Accordingly, we uphold the Judgment of the High Court and dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.

N.K.A.					   Appeal dismissed.
145